Missile Defense Encourages Proliferation
OCTOBER 22, 2000 LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
To The Editor:
Jack Spencer and Michael Scardaville’s selective “analysis” of a recent spate of missile tests relies on a huge red herring (“Missile defense and the arms race,” Commentary, Oct. 18).
The authors erroneously claim that President Clinton’s decision to leave the issue of national missile defense to his successor led to the subsequent test of a Shahab-3 missile by Iran, Syria’s test of a Scud-D missile, and Libya’s acquisition of 50 NoDong missiles from North Korea. Conveniently omitted is the fact that these missile developments all occurred within a week after Israel successfully tested its Arrow 2 anti-tactical ballistic missile system. Since the above missiles are all tactical missiles capable of threatening Israel but incapable of reaching U.S. territory, the recent wave of proliferation in the Middle East, if a response to anything, is a response to Israel’s burgeoning anti-missile capabilities, not Clinton’s decision.
Mr. Spencer and Mr. Scardaville unwittingly prove this point by arguing that the Syrians are trying to outfit the Scud-D with multiple warheads in hopes of foiling Israel’s Arrow 2 theater missile- defense system.”
The authors also claim that Russia tested its Topol-M missile in response to Mr. Clinton’s decision. In fact, Russia began testing the Topol-M in 1994 and is adapting it to overcome any future U.S. anti-missile systems.
If, as the article assumes, anti-ballistic missile systems deter proliferation, why do Iran, Syria, and Libya seem unfazed— and even provoked— by Israeli missile defenses? Why is Russia determined to preserve its retaliatory strike capability against possible U.S. defenses?
The lesson from the Middle East and Russia is that missile defenses encourage proliferation. If the U.S. proceeds with deployment of its own system, it will learn that lesson the hard way.
Steve LaMontagne
Research Analyst
Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation
Washington